VOTE!

[BigBruceBaker]

What is he referring to?

[The Butcher]

What is he referring to?

There have been a plethora of new voting laws across the country in various states to make voting more difficult. The laws are being pushed under the guise of the "big lie" Trump was pedaling.

[Cataholic]

Huh? Making it harder to vote? It is easier to vote now than it has ever been.

Do you think that felons should be able to vote? How about people who are not actually citizens? How about 16 year olds?

[Cataholic]

What is he referring to?

There have been a plethora of new voting laws across the country in various states to make voting more difficult. The laws are being pushed under the guise of the "big lie" Trump was pedaling.

Please provide examples.

[coachouert]

Huh? Making it harder to vote? It is easier to vote now than it has ever been.

Do you think that felons should be able to vote? How about people who are not actually citizens? How about 16 year olds?

Where are non-citizens and 16 year olds voting? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but that's the first I'm hearing of it.

[The Butcher]

Huh? Making it harder to vote? It is easier to vote now than it has ever been.

Do you think that felons should be able to vote? How about people who are not actually citizens? How about 16 year olds?

Where are non-citizens and 16 year olds voting? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but that's the first I'm hearing of it.

Well Trump said....

[BigBruceBaker]

Huh? Making it harder to vote? It is easier to vote now than it has ever been.

Do you think that felons should be able to vote? How about people who are not actually citizens? How about 16 year olds?

Where are non-citizens and 16 year olds voting? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but that's the first I'm hearing of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... e-n1239955

https://vote16usa.org/reasons-for-lowing-voting-age-16/

[wbtfg]

What is he referring to?

There have been a plethora of new voting laws across the country in various states to make voting more difficult. The laws are being pushed under the guise of the "big lie" Trump was pedaling.

Please provide examples.

John Kavanaugh said the quiet part out loud.

"There's a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans," Kavanagh said. "Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they're willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote -- but everybody shouldn't be voting."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/11/politics ... index.html

[coachouert]

Huh? Making it harder to vote? It is easier to vote now than it has ever been.

Do you think that felons should be able to vote? How about people who are not actually citizens? How about 16 year olds?

Where are non-citizens and 16 year olds voting? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but that's the first I'm hearing of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... e-n1239955

https://vote16usa.org/reasons-for-lowing-voting-age-16/

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

[BigBruceBaker]

Huh? Making it harder to vote? It is easier to vote now than it has ever been.

Do you think that felons should be able to vote? How about people who are not actually citizens? How about 16 year olds?

Where are non-citizens and 16 year olds voting? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but that's the first I'm hearing of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... e-n1239955

https://vote16usa.org/reasons-for-lowing-voting-age-16/

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

I knew I had read something about it. I don’t put much stock in it. The whole “if you can fight for your country you can vote and smoke” I get. But a bunch of sophomores in high school voting for our next president? I don’t see it

[Cataholic]

What is he referring to?

There have been a plethora of new voting laws across the country in various states to make voting more difficult. The laws are being pushed under the guise of the "big lie" Trump was pedaling.

Please provide examples.

John Kavanaugh said the quiet part out loud.

"There's a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans," Kavanagh said. "Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they're willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote -- but everybody shouldn't be voting."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/11/politics ... index.html

Also from the article regarding Kavanagh:

He acknowledged that the concerns about those ballots being cast fraudulently are "anecdotal, because obviously if nobody's there and they throw it away, you wouldn't know. And if nobody's there and they vote it and do a good duplicate of the signature, you wouldn't know."

I know it is easy to generalize, but please wbtfg, can you tell us what you are specifically objecting to? It would seem that ensuring voter fraud does not occur is a good thing.

[TomCat88]

It’s a given that we should do whatever is reasonable to discourage voter fraud. However, the bigger issue is creating a system that makes it easier to vote so that voter turnout, especially at general elections, is closer to 90-95%, not 60%. You should be able to vote easily via a multi-pronged approach. There should never be a line stretching around the block. Minorities should turnout in the same percentage as whites.

There should be just as much, if not more, effort to encourage everyone that wants to vote, to vote.

[Cataholic]

It’s a given that we should do whatever is reasonable to discourage voter fraud. However, the bigger issue is creating a system that makes it easier to vote so that voter turnout, especially at general elections, is closer to 90-95%, not 60%. You should be able to vote easily via a multi-pronged approach. There should never be a line stretching around the block. Minorities should turnout in the same percentage as whites.

There should be just as much, if not more, effort to encourage everyone that wants to vote, to vote.

My question is why are 60% of the people voting and 40% not voting? All 40% of those people have the ability to vote in person or via absentee ballot. If you want more ballot boxes so waits are not that long, that is great! But if people don’t want to vote because it is not important enough to them to ask for an absentee ballot, should we be focused trying to capture that vote?

I will attempt to supply theoretical example to you. Let’s say that the search committee for Choate’s had 20 people with 8 members (40%) never making a single meeting. Those 8 people were afforded virtual options, conference calls, etc, but they never participated in one meeting. When a vote is taken, 7 people vote for Vigen, 3 vote for Polesek and 2 vote for Ioane. When the results are sent to the board of regents, the regents say the vote is not acceptable unless all 20 members vote. When the other 8 members who have not participated vote, they use all 8 votes to choose Bob Stitt (it is later learned that all 8 were Griz spies)..

Hopefully you can see I am just having a little fun, but shouldn’t that remaining 40% of the vote give at least a semblance of interest in voting? Absentee voting has been an accepted method for decades. Additionally, we can’t give up all security protocols to capture that 40%. If you are going to cheat on a vote, wouldn’t it be much easier to cheat by mass mailing versus in person voting?

[TomCat88]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/no ... -election/

That’s a good article on people not voting.

[TomCat88]

It’s a given that we should do whatever is reasonable to discourage voter fraud. However, the bigger issue is creating a system that makes it easier to vote so that voter turnout, especially at general elections, is closer to 90-95%, not 60%. You should be able to vote easily via a multi-pronged approach. There should never be a line stretching around the block. Minorities should turnout in the same percentage as whites.

There should be just as much, if not more, effort to encourage everyone that wants to vote, to vote.

My question is why are 60% of the people voting and 40% not voting? All 40% of those people have the ability to vote in person or via absentee ballot. If you want more ballot boxes so waits are not that long, that is great! But if people don’t want to vote because it is not important enough to them to ask for an absentee ballot, should we be focused trying to capture that vote?

I will attempt to supply theoretical example to you. Let’s say that the search committee for Choate’s had 20 people with 8 members (40%) never making a single meeting. Those 8 people were afforded virtual options, conference calls, etc, but they never participated in one meeting. When a vote is taken, 7 people vote for Vigen, 3 vote for Polesek and 2 vote for Ioane. When the results are sent to the board of regents, the regents say the vote is not acceptable unless all 20 members vote. When the other 8 members who have not participated vote, they use all 8 votes to choose Bob Stitt (it is later learned that all 8 were Griz spies)..

Hopefully you can see I am just having a little fun, but shouldn’t that remaining 40% of the vote give at least a semblance of interest in voting? Absentee voting has been an accepted method for decades. Additionally, we can’t give up all security protocols to capture that 40%. If you are going to cheat on a vote, wouldn’t it be much easier to cheat by mass mailing versus in person voting?

Absolutely people should have an interest in voting. They gain interest when they are well educated, have reasonable access to the ballot box, etc.

If you’re well educated, have easy access etc., but still don’t care you shouldn’t vote.

I think getting everyone to the polls is what would force the party’s hands and drive policies where the true majority wants them. I think it would help create stronger third and fourth parties. It create a what’s-best-for-everyone vs the current what’s-best-for-me atmosphere.

[RickRund]

It’s a given that we should do whatever is reasonable to discourage voter fraud. However, the bigger issue is creating a system that makes it easier to vote so that voter turnout, especially at general elections, is closer to 90-95%, not 60%. You should be able to vote easily via a multi-pronged approach. There should never be a line stretching around the block. Minorities should turnout in the same percentage as whites.

There should be just as much, if not more, effort to encourage everyone that wants to vote, to vote.

My question is why are 60% of the people voting and 40% not voting? All 40% of those people have the ability to vote in person or via absentee ballot. If you want more ballot boxes so waits are not that long, that is great! But if people don’t want to vote because it is not important enough to them to ask for an absentee ballot, should we be focused trying to capture that vote?

I will attempt to supply theoretical example to you. Let’s say that the search committee for Choate’s had 20 people with 8 members (40%) never making a single meeting. Those 8 people were afforded virtual options, conference calls, etc, but they never participated in one meeting. When a vote is taken, 7 people vote for Vigen, 3 vote for Polesek and 2 vote for Ioane. When the results are sent to the board of regents, the regents say the vote is not acceptable unless all 20 members vote. When the other 8 members who have not participated vote, they use all 8 votes to choose Bob Stitt (it is later learned that all 8 were Griz spies)..

Hopefully you can see I am just having a little fun, but shouldn’t that remaining 40% of the vote give at least a semblance of interest in voting? Absentee voting has been an accepted method for decades. Additionally, we can’t give up all security protocols to capture that 40%. If you are going to cheat on a vote, wouldn’t it be much easier to cheat by mass mailing versus in person voting?

Absolutely people should have an interest in voting. They gain interest when they are well educated, have reasonable access to the ballot box, etc.

If you’re well educated, have easy access etc., but still don’t care you shouldn’t vote.

I think getting everyone to the polls is what would force the party’s hands and drive policies where the true majority wants them. I think it would help create stronger third and fourth parties. It create a what’s-best-for-everyone vs the current what’s-best-for-me atmosphere.

But with too many strong parties it may be difficult to reach the needed 270 electoral votes.

[arvcat2]

Mail in voting problems in a democrat Montana county...inconceivable

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... 69321.html